EUR-Lex Access to European Union law
This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website
Document 62008CN0566
Case C-566/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-566/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
Case C-566/08: Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
OJ C 44, 21.2.2009, p. 37–38
(BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)
- Date of document:
- 22/12/2008
- Date lodged:
- 22/12/2008
- Author:
- Court of Justice
- Form:
- Judicial information
- Authentic language:
- French
- Link
- Select all documents mentioning this document
- Case affecting:
-
- Annulment request 32008D0780
- Instruments cited in case law:
- Link
|
21.2.2009 |
EN |
Official Journal of the European Union |
C 44/37 |
Action brought on 22 December 2008 — European Parliament v Council of the European Union
(Case C-566/08)
(2009/C 44/63)
Language of the case: French
Parties
Applicant: European Parliament (represented by R. Passos, G. Mazzini and D. Gauci, acting as Agents)
Defendant: Council of the European Union
Form of order sought
|
— |
annul, on the ground of breach of the EC Treaty, Council Decision 2008/780/EC of 29 September 2008 on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Community, of the Southern Indian Ocean Fisheries Agreement (1); |
|
— |
order the Council to pay the costs. |
Pleas in law and main arguments
The European Parliament relies on a single plea in law in support of its application, namely the wrong legal basis of the contested decision. According to the Parliament, it is clear both from the interpretation of Article 300 EC and from the content of the agreement at issue in the present case that that agreement falls within the category of agreements establishing a specific institutional framework by organising cooperation procedures. Consequently, the contested decision should have been adopted on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the second subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC — requiring the assent of the European Parliament to be obtained — and not on the basis of Article 37 EC in conjunction with the first sentence of the first subparagraph of Article 300(2) EC and the first subparagraph of Article 300(3) EC, providing merely for the Parliament to be consulted.
